The acceptance of the legality of Mandatory Government Sanctioned Vaccines became cemented in a landmark Supreme Court case, “Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 u.s. 11 (1905)” … Or did it?
According to the Pro-Mandatory Vaccination side, the U.S. Government and Pharmaceutical companies are always able to solidly hang their hat on the 1905 Supreme Court Decision; “Jacobson v. Massachusetts,” as the sacrosanct, medically “scientific” rationale for forced vaccinations for the public “good” or “public health.”
The argument goes that the Government Enforcement of Mandatory Vaccines has already been established by the supreme law of the land, since 1905.
There is nothing that an individual can do, but roll up their sleeve and take the shot for the welfare of “public health.”
Period…end of story.
Or is it?
There are even menacing articles that claim that not vaccinating is medical neglect and that CPS (Child Protective Services) can step in to take over any medical decisions for your child, and at worst can take your child and place him/her into the deeply troubled foster care system.
See above mentioned, menacing article here.
You know the same foster care system that allegedly has major problems with sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking?
See this fairly recent follow-up Los Angeles Times article, that speaks about the proliferation of foster children being housed with registered sex offenders, here in California.
The above article was a follow-up to this shocking previous finding in the Los Angeles Times Blog article from 2011, “State says 1,000 care facilities match sex offender addresses.”
That’s all we need as a society is more children caught up in the sex trafficking and forced government medical experimentation facilities (CPS Foster Care).
In the Los Angeles daily news article from 2014, “Drugging our kids: Children in California’s foster care system are prescribed risky medications,” the government and pharmaceutical medical experimentation being forced on the state’s most vulnerable children; foster kids that are wards of the state, is described in plain language:
“Abandoned and alone, they are among California’s most powerless children. But instead of providing a stable home and caring family, the state’s foster care system gives them a pill.
With alarming frequency, foster and health care providers are turning to a risky but convenient remedy to control the behavior of thousands of troubled kids: numbing them with psychiatric drugs that are untested on and often not approved for children.”
New Mexico recently passed a law, the first of its kind, prohibiting Forced Psychiatric Drugging of Children, which is a much needed law in all states in the U.S. to prevent government and pharmaceutical industry-wide abuse of children.
Now with California’s decriminalization of child prostitution (see my previous article here), Foster Care has been turned into a boon for child predators and traffickers with health care providers helping to (numb) drug the child victims…
…Pretty sick stuff…
California is in desperate need of a complete overhaul (foster care system, public health system, public school system and more)… starting with the Governor’s office…
With all of the forced medical experimentation and forced vaccination of all public and private school children (Pan SB277), you’d think there would be rioting in the streets with parents carrying pitchforks and torches marching on Sacramento…
I guess the public school indoctrination, fluoride, vaccines, forced-drugging and media propaganda are all working to subdue the California population… for now.
And now I really understand why the California Democratic Party wants only newly-arrived, illegal immigrants in California…
…most don’t understand English, so they can’t understand what is happening in the California State legislature and they are so easy to manipulate and exploit, since they have no understanding of U.S. laws or any rights that they may have, outside of what they are being told…
Back to the topic at hand…
Just WHAT Makes Public Health a Priority Over Individual Health?
…and doesn’t it make sense that Public Health Begins with Individual Health?
Quarantine and Isolation were the first Public Health measures to be introduced into various societies Before it was widely known that simple hand washing with soap, proper garbage disposal, plumbing, human waste disposal and sanitation were known to protect public health from the spread of disease.
According to John Sauer, in his Huffington Post article, “No-Plumbing Disease:”
“There are over 25 diseases (deadly and debilitating) that are the result of poor sanitation and unsafe water. These include cholera, typhoid, amoebic dysentery, campylobacter enteritis, giardia, Guinea worm, schistosomiasis, bacillary dysentery (shigellosis), Escherichia Coli diarrhea. And there are at least 10 lesser known ones.
Perhaps if we considered these as one disease, it would garner the public outcry it deserves. Let’s call it No-Plumbing Disease.
We would see that No-Plumbing Disease kills more children than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB combined. We would see the truth of the ugly situation; the relentless outbreaks of diarrhea that, when they don’t kill kids, weaken them month after month – the instances of a single child, for example, suffering a dozen bouts of it per year, the ensuing malnutrition, the family’s economic burden of curing the child, the impact this constant sickness has on a child’s education.
The most practical investment we can make in global public health is plumbing.”
Kinda makes you wonder, just who’s in control and why they wouldn’t want to spread this knowledge and technology far and wide, doesn’t it?
It makes sense, when you understand Agenda 21 and depopulation and the Globalists hatred of the common folk…
The origins of Public Health as a Societal Concept…
According to Boston University;
“The Sanitary Idea (1850-1875)
In many respects, public health as we think of it today (i.e., as a function of good government) took shape in London and Paris in the wake of the devastating health consequences of the Industrial Revolution. However, the circumstances that propelled the development of public health as a discipline are more complex with many contributing factors. First, there was the notion of the importance of the monarchy and the power of the state. The influence and power of the state could be assessed in many ways including commerce and trade, but also by the size of the population and the health and fitness of the working population.
This crude notion made the work of John Graunt quite compelling, and the importance attached to “numbering the people” grew. Not surprisingly, the General Registrar’s Office was established in 1837 to record compulsory registration of births, deaths, and marriages in England and Wales. Dr. William Farr was appointed Chief Statistician; Farr had trained at the Royal Academy of Medicine in Paris. The General Registrar’s Office established the importance of surveillance with respect to health.
A second factor was the emergence of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, which embraced democracy, citizenship, reason, rationality, and the social value of intelligence (the value of information gathering). These ideas provided important underpinnings for public health. In the early 1800s, Jeremy Bentham and his disciples (the theoretical radicals) developed the philosophy of utilitarianism which provided a theoretic underpinning for health policy and wider social policies. One theme was that the reduction of mortality and improvements in health had an economic value to society. Healthy workers were more able to contribute to the economy of the state. Implicit in utilitarianism was the notion that one could measure ‘evil’ by the degree of misery that was created (or relieved) by a particular action. To Bentham the welfare of both the wealthy and the poor could be achieved most efficiently with good government.
Yet another factor was the recognition that poor health was a burden that fell disproportionately on the poor. Villerme, a physician in Paris had noticed that mortality rates varied widely among the districts (arrondissement) of Paris. He tried to correlate mortality with the distance of the arrondissement from the Seine River, the relationship of the streets to the prevailing winds, the arrondissement’s source of water and local climatological factors such as soil type, exposure to the sun, elevation and inclination of the arrondissement. None of these things correlated. However, when he used tax rates as an indicator of wealth, Villerme found a striking correlation with mortality rates.
The graph below shows the correlation between poverty and mortality rates among different districts (arrondissements) in Paris found by Villerme.
This relationship has persisted for centuries, and it is a powerful predictor of health.
In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick, a social reformer, published a report entitled the ‘Report into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain’ proving that life expectancy was much lower in towns than in the countryside.”
Isn’t THAT interesting?
The impoverished do worse when stacked on top of each other in dirty, vermin-infested cities, like those pushed by the Globalists via Agenda 21 (sustainable housing); with poor quality water, plumbing and sanitation, than they do when they live in the spacious and clean countryside!
With that information, you can understand what is happening to people’s health in cities like, Flint, Michigan.
The city’s water supply has been toxic and dangerous to drink, since 2014.
Can you imagine all of the cases of dangerous diarrhea and subsequent premature deaths that could have been prevented, if the water supply had been sanitary?
SSSHHHH…don’t tell ANY Poor Person this information…I don’t think that the local Globalist-Democratically controlled government in Flint, Michigan would want anyone to know this.
So, in a nutshell, “Public Health” was developed by the English government to help keep control of the masses. By issuing birth, death and marriage certificates, the government could keep tabs and statistics on its workers during the Industrial Age and beyond.
Then there was the stunning revelation that poor people suffer(ed) the most when it comes to premature death and disease when housed and confined in filthy and unsanitary living conditions in the Industrial towns…
Which Brings Us Back to Jacobson v. Massachusetts…
You can find the full text of the 1905 Supreme Court decision here.
Published in the American Journal of Public Health ( 2005 April; 95(4): 581–590), “Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law,” gives a wonderful and condensed assessment of the 1905 Supreme Court decision:
“As the 20th century began, epidemics of infectious diseases such as smallpox remained a recurrent threat. A Massachusetts statute granted city boards of health the authority to require vaccination “when necessary for public health or safety.”17 In 1902, when smallpox surged in Cambridge, the city’s board of health issued an order pursuant to this authority that required all adults to be vaccinated to halt the disease. The statutory penalty for refusing vaccination was a monetary fine of $5 (about $100 today). There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person.
Henning Jacobson refused vaccination, claiming that he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it unnecessary to worry about any possible harm from vaccination, because no one could actually be forced to be vaccinated: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of $5.”18 Jacobson was fined, and he appealed to the US Supreme Court.”
The full article can be found here and I highly suggest reading it thoroughly.
Did you get THAT?
“There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on ANY Person.”
That means that paying a $5 fine for refusing vaccination ought to suffice, especially given the circumstance that their is NO PUBLIC COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CRISIS and absolutely no government authority to force vaccinate the public, according to Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
The article concludes by saying:
“In an era of increasingly limited state funds, there is a danger that legislatures will turn to laws that restrict personal liberty as a substitute for providing the resources necessary for positive public health programs that actually prevent disease and improve health. Such symbolic “grandstanding” may be especially tempting for representatives whose reelection depends more on those who finance their campaigns than on the voters.162 But it shifts responsibility for protecting the public health from the government to individuals and punishes those who are least able to protect themselves. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals against abuses by the state, even when the abuses have the support of the majority. This is why constitutional protection of liberty remains so important.
One practical reason for protecting constitutional rights is that it encourages social solidarity. People are more likely to trust officials who protect their personal liberty. Without trust, public officials will not be able to persuade the public to take even the most reasonable precautions during an emergency, which will make a bad situation even worse. The public will support reasonable public health interventions if they trust public health officials to make sensible recommendations that are based on science and where the public is treated as part of the solution instead of the problem. Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.”
California Government??? Where should I send my 5 Bucks?
Lawyers… Have at it…